The Queen: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government will pursue policies aimed at meeting the challenges which the United Kingdom faces at home and abroad.
	A stable economy is the foundation of a fair and prosperous society. My Government will continue to maintain low inflation, sound public finances and high employment.
	At the heart of my Government's programme will be further action to provide strong, secure and stable communities, and to address the threat of terrorism.
	My Government will put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, support the police and all those responsible for the public's safety, and proceed with the development of ID cards.
	A Bill will be brought forward for the next stage of reform of the criminal justice system, giving the police and probation services new powers to protect the public from violent offenders and anti-social behaviour.
	Legislation will be introduced to improve the way that offenders are managed and supervised.
	Measures will be brought forward to give law enforcement agencies new powers to combat serious and organised crime.
	A Bill will be introduced to provide the Immigration Service with further powers to police the country's borders, tackle immigration crime, and to make it easier to deport those who break the law.
	A Bill will be introduced to provide for trials without a jury in serious fraud cases.
	Legislation will be brought forward to improve the administration of justice by reforming the tribunal system, the qualifications for judicial appointment and the enforcement of judgments.
	My Government will publish a Bill on climate change as part of its policy to protect the environment, consistent with the need to secure long-term energy supplies.
	My Government will continue their investment in, and reforms of, the public services in order to improve further their effectiveness and to help the most vulnerable members of society.
	My Government will take forward legislation to reform the welfare system, and to reduce poverty.
	A Bill will be introduced to improve the system of child support.
	A Bill will be introduced providing for long-term reform of pensions.
	Legislation will provide for free off-peak local bus travel for pensioners and disabled people.
	My Government's programme of educational reform will continue to raise standards in schools to help all children achieve their full potential.
	A Bill will be introduced to reform the further education system so that it can better equip people with the skills that they and the economy need.
	My Government will carry through the modernisation of healthcare based on the founding principles of the National Health Service.
	A Bill will be introduced to provide a better framework for treating people with mental disorders.
	Draft proposals will be published to reform the regulation of human embryology.
	A draft Bill will be published to tackle road congestion and to improve public transport.
	My Government will publish proposals to reform the planning system.
	Legislation will provide for improved arrangements for consumer advocacy and for the regulation of estate agents.
	My Government will also continue their programme of reform to provide institutions that better serve a modern democracy. It will work to build a consensus on reform of the House of Lords and will bring forward proposals.
	Bills will provide for reform of local government and enhanced powers for the Mayor and Assembly for London.
	Legislation will be introduced to create an independent board to enhance confidence in Government statistics.
	Members of the House of Commons,
	Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government will work closely with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.
	My Government will work towards the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, including by bringing forward legislation.
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to our state visit to the United States of America in May 2007 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement. We also look forward to receiving the President of Ghana and Mrs Kufuor.
	My Government remains committed to peace in the Middle East. It will continue to work to find a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, to support the new Iraqi Government in its efforts to build an enduring constitutional settlement, and to assist the Government of Afghanistan.
	My Government will work with the United Nations and European Union partners to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including addressing international concerns over North Korea and Iran, and to promote good governance.
	My Government will continue to work to build an effective and globally competitive European Union and will also work to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
	My Government will contribute to a modern and inclusive United Nations and will work to take forward the World Trade Organisation Doha talks.
	My Government will continue its focus on Africa, including by seeking a resolution to the crisis in Darfur. I look forward to visiting Kampala next year for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
	My Government will work to foster a strong partnership between Europe and the United States of America in order to meet these objectives.
	Other measures will be laid before you.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

House adjourned during pleasure.
	House resumed at half-past three: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
	"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
	Let me say first that it is a great honour and pleasure to move this Motion. I thank my noble friend Lady Amos for giving me this opportunity. She is a warm, generous and open person, as well as a very talented one, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. I would make the same comments about my noble friend Lord Grocott, except maybe to give them a slightly more masculine tinge. Both noble Lords are extraordinarily democratic in their approach to colleagues, and that is true for the House as a whole. In the gracious Speech the Government have stated their intention to reform the House of Lords. I am not against reform, but I would ask the reformers to remember that there are two aspects to democracy. One is how Members of the House are selected and the other is to provide a public forum for the open, objective and expert discussion of public issues. This is something which in my short experience I feel the House is exceptionally good at. Whatever happens in these reforms, that quality should not be sacrificed.
	I can still remember my first missive from my noble friend Lord Grocott. I am pretty new to Parliament so I was impressed when I got a thick letter with the words, "From the Labour Group" printed on the back. I thought that it would be full of information about interesting things to do, people to meet and ideas to discuss, but it had just a single slip of paper in it stating,
	"Please contribute to the fund for hospital expenses and the cost of funerals".
	I thought, "I do not want to be reminded of my mortality so quickly". It brought to mind perhaps the most ambitious classified ad that I ever saw on eBay: it said "Used tombstone for sale. Would suit family called 'Naisbit'". I carefully checked that there is no Lord Naisbit in the Chamber.
	Before coming into your Lordships' House I was the director of the London School of Economics, an institution which I am pleased to say is often mentioned here—sometimes even approvingly. There are many economists in your Lordships' House—I am sure that is a good thing—but not everyone is persuaded of the virtues of the subject. Economics is said to be the only subject where two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying completely opposite things. This happened when Friedrich von Hayek and Gunnar Myrdal shared the Noble Prize for saying completely opposite things in 1974. Why do economists exist? To make weather forecasters feel good.
	Mention of economics brings me back to the gracious Speech, which quite rightly begins with the Government's economic record. If you want to show the health of an economy, you should not look at its rate of unemployment but at its rate of employment. In the UK at the moment 75 per cent of the labour force is in work. Is this not an extraordinary achievement? Compare it with the percentages for France, Germany and Italy. In France and Germany, only 63 or 64 per cent of the labour force is in work. This means that you have to pay out a lot more in unemployment benefits; you cannot spend the money on hospitals, pensions or the other things that people need. In Italy—I do not mean to sound too down on Italy, which is a lovely country—only 51 per cent of the labour force is in work. So the Government have considerable economic achievements to their credit.
	This has not been purchased at the expense of social justice. The Government have introduced a fairly substantial minimum wage. This was much criticised at the time but it has not destroyed jobs. The New Deal means that there is virtually no long-term unemployment in this country and only a very low level of youth unemployment. Compare that, again, to France. In France, about 30 per cent of people under 30 have never held a proper job. It is a very different situation here. The Government have hit upon a combination of economic prosperity and stability, as the gracious Speech says, low inflation and very substantial social justice. More than 2 million people have been lifted out of poverty since 1997. Is that not a substantial achievement? Is that not an achievement to be proud of? Yes, it is.
	A good deal of the gracious Speech concentrates on security, crime and international terrorism. I know there are many in your Lordships' House who have worries about the Government's policies in these areas. I think it is entirely right and proper that the House should be a bastion for the defence of our liberties and our freedoms. However, I ask noble Lords to consider not only our formal freedoms but our real freedoms. Freedom is not real unless you can utilise it. Am I free if I cannot go outside my house at night for fear of juvenile gangs? Am I free if I dare not go to my local park, even in the daytime? Am I free if I live with some realistic fear of international terrorism?
	Noble Lords should remember that the new international terrorism is totally different from the terrorism of the IRA or ETA with which we are familiar. That is local terrorism oriented towards local nationalist objectives. It is a muted form of terrorism, whatever the barbarisms carried out in its name. We now face a much more ruthless form of terrorism in which the terrorist leaders say that if they could, they would kill millions of people. Osama bin Laden has said that he would kill millions of Americans. This is a new threat; we must mobilise to counter it, and you cannot do so, I think, with just a classical civil liberties position. We must be prepared to find an appropriate balance between traditional civil liberties and protection.
	I do not want to hammer the theme of economists too much, but I remind noble Lords that it is an economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, who has just produced the definitive report on climate change. The Prime Minister has described this report as the most important one to be produced during his period of office. Again, there are some sceptics when it comes to climate change—some people do not believe it and say that the risk is exaggerated—just as there are sceptics about international terrorism, although one group tends to be on the left and the other on the right. But climate change is different. We cannot wait around to see whether the sceptics are right or wrong. We must act, and we must act now, to counter climate change. I am very pleased that there is a sort of cross-party consensus on this issue. I beg to move.
	Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the following terms:
	"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".—(Lord Giddens.)

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I beg to second my noble friend's Motion for an humble Address. I still literally cannot believe that I am a Member of your Lordships' House, and this honour is completely unexpected—so much so, that when I was asked to see the Leader, it crossed my mind that I might have been found out. It occurred to me that I might be the wrong Delyth Morgan. I am often told that I do not look like a Baroness, and there are quite a few Delyth Morgans in Wales, so it occurred to me that it could be quite an easy mistake to make. There is Delyth the post, Delyth the farmer's wife, Delyth Morgan the international rugby player and sports producer, Delyth Morgan the neurologist. I could go on. Am I really the right Delyth Morgan? Perhaps my Letters Patent went to the wrong address, and the Leader was about to ask me to do the decent thing. But there was no such suggestion when my noble friend Lady Amos greeted me with her broad, dignified smile and informed me of this great honour. I felt huge relief, as your Lordships can imagine, but this was followed immediately by a great knot in my stomach, which is still here and is always present when I contemplate addressing this House.
	I, too, pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Amos and Lord Grocott. Both have been a great inspiration to me and enormously supportive as I go through my journey of acclimatisation from my former identity, as I don the ermine, whether real or fake, and become acclimatised to your Lordships' House.
	It is a particular honour for me to second the Motion of my noble friend Lord Giddens, and what an amazing speech he made. How can I follow that? It gives me great pleasure to pay special tribute to him; he is an internationally distinguished sociologist and political scientist, and an eminent economist. He is also, of course, the acclaimed architect of the third way. Most importantly for us, he is a prolific contributor to this House.
	My background is in the voluntary sector, in which I have been an activist and campaigner all my adult life. Directly before coming into your Lordships' House I devoted my time to raising awareness of the impact of cancer, especially breast cancer, which affects one in nine women in the UK. My noble friend talked about the health of the economy; I should like to say a few words about the health of the nation. The gracious Speech makes reference to the importance of maintaining sound public finances. I am sure that we all recognise the importance of that, especially with regard to public services. I am sure that the House will give me some indulgence and allow me to focus a little on the National Health Service.
	The health debate will always rage on. Now may be the right time to consider the most significant changes that have taken place under this Government. First, the Government are well on the way to achieving a level of investment in health that is on a par with the European average. That is something that voluntary sector leaders and myself campaigned for in the late 1990s, and now it is happening at last. That must be an enormously progressive thing.
	Secondly, rationing by waiting list is being consigned to the history books. Virtually no one waits more than six months for an operation and average waits are now under eight weeks. This is a momentous turnaround. I know from personal experience how important this is: in 1997, my mother-in-law had a hip replacement, having waited two years in pain. As for thousands of other patients, that was the norm unless you could pay; it was unforgivable then and it is unforgivable now. Death rates for the big killers, such as cancer and heart disease, are also falling ahead of target, with cancer death rates in this country falling faster than anywhere else in the world. Importantly, measures of the patient experience are extremely high—and that, of course, should be the ultimate yardstick for NHS success. But there is still much more to do to empower patients and give voice to the concerns of service users and carers on a more systematic basis.
	In spite of those achievements, when we look back at this era in years to come I suspect that one remarkable achievement will stand out—a legacy for the future. It is the Government's attack on tobacco, starting with an advertising ban and leading finally to a ban on smoking in public places. That was quite unthinkable 10 years ago. My father was diagnosed with lung cancer when I was a child and I have seen at first hand the devastating impact that tobacco can have. Experts estimate that today a staggering 1,000 hospital admissions per day take place because of diseases linked to smoking. So that is a real legacy of prevention for the future.
	There is much more to do and there are major challenges ahead. An ageing population combined with the impact of childhood obesity, the speed of innovation and the cost of new technologies are all very challenging financially. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said recently to young people:
	"If you want to change the world, become a scientist".
	I thought that those remarks were very important and great to hear, but I wonder if perhaps he meant, "become a health economist"? It is all the betterthat we face the future with the underpinning values of the NHS settled—a universal health service funded through taxation, available to all according to need and free at the point of use.
	Then there is the possibility of further reform of your Lordships' House. I am taking the long view. In 23 years, I shall achieve the average age in this House, and I hope not only to make full use of my well-connected free bus pass but to continue to serve this House for many years thereafter. So I speak as an optimist—as someone whose glass is always half full, especially in the wonderful new Lords bar. I see a House of Lords that is very good at change. Apparently, we have been very quick to adopt new technologies, such as the PDA mobile computers; we have been much faster than our colleagues from another place. We may be adept at using those tiny keyboards, but you can still find an inkwell in the Salisbury Room if you need one. I think that the House of Lords is rather good at change, so long as it can take change at its own pace, however fast or slow that may be.
	I aspire to be a great orator one day, and I hope to have plenty of practice in your Lordships' House. I have noticed that the most eloquent speakers use a literary quotation to close. As my father grew up in Swansea, I feel that I must turn to its very own bard, Dylan Thomas. As we are about to start work on a very busy Session, perhaps we should take heart in his words:
	"He who seeks rest finds boredom. He who seeks work finds rest".
	I have also been given very good advice not to go on too long. I do not want to have cause to use his second most famous line:
	"Someone is boring me. I think it is me".
	Thank you, my Lords. This has been a great honour.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow. In so doing, it is my most pleasant duty to congratulate the mover and seconder of this Motion on their remarkable speeches. I refer especially to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and his thoughtful remarks on reform of this House. I agree with much of what he said.
	It was for me a particular pleasure to see that the noble Lord was to speak today. As is widely known, he is a distinguished economist, but he is far better known as the father of the third way. It confirmed my feelings that this year's gracious Speech was all about the legacy. After all, the noble Lord was in at the beginning of it all; it is right that he should be here to pronounce the last rites.
	The noble Lord rightly got his slot today while his pupil the Prime Minister is still in charge. Next year, Britain will have a new leader with new friends. I have a confession to make to the noble Lord. I am not an avid reader of tracts on the third way. Perhaps I would be a better person if I were, but I am not. I looked up the noble Lord's website at the LSE. It opens like this:
	"Anthony Giddens is by common agreement the most widely cited contemporary sociologist in the world"—
	clearly a modest man. The website goes on:
	"He is renowned for his clear and fluent speaking style, and once won the title of the best lecturer in the world".
	Having heard him today, we all acknowledge that fluency. The "Best in the World" title was from the University of Aarhus, no doubt a very fine centre of learning, but this House is a tougher judge, so the noble Lord will know that the pleasure with which he is heard here, and was heard again today, is a greater accolade than many. I congratulate him on his remarks.
	I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, with equal delight. She is one of the younger members of this House, in fact a near contemporary of mine, although she may not look it. She may lack the worldwide fame of the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, but she has won enormous respect in her career of public service. She has worked on many causes: for children, the homeless, the NHS, on asthma and notably in the field of breast cancer, where she came to know too close to home the terrible way in which this scourge strikes the young.
	I hear that during the last election she drove with great verve and skill a Labour women's battle bus. Think of the treasure that she had in her hands—the Crown jewels of new Labour: Patricia Hewitt, Tessa Jowell, Harriet Harman and, who knows, perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, too. If the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was equal to that awesome responsibility, she is equal to anything. Having heard her today, I am sure that a visit from her team did more good for Labour than an ocean of spin from Millbank. The noble Baroness graces this House and I congratulate her warmly on her speech.
	This is a great occasion. The state opening of Parliament is a great day, when all of us come together to celebrate something that is fundamental, the rock of a constitution that has given our country freedom from revolution and civil conflict for 260 years. It is a day when we, who are, as was once cruelly said, here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians, see something greater than us: a Crown that is the gracious embodiment of the nation. It is also a day when this House for a few brief hours is the centre of the country's attention.
	This House has seen great changes in recent years. The Cross-Benchers, who lost over half their strength in 1999, have grown again almost to outnumber the two main parties. Indeed, is it not striking—although I do not think that he is in his seat today—that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, now resides onthe Cross Benches? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, gave him a great farewell party. How pleased we will all be that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will no longer have to cut short his speeches under pressure from Labour Whips.
	One truth that we must all acknowledge is that since 1997 this House has been utterly transformed. No one sits here any more by virtue of a hereditary peerage. The arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, in October, now means that exactly half the House has been appointed since 1997. That is remarkable change for any legislature to accommodate and, surely, is legacy enough for this Prime Minister. When or if we have reform, it must strengthen the House, not weaken it. So I welcome the emphasis that the Government have so wisely laid on the need for consensus and the fact that there is no proposal for unilateral legislation on your Lordships' House in the gracious Speech.
	Will the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, tell us if there will still be votes on the principle of any proposals, and will she confirm that this House will have a full say on the same basis as another place? Will she also confirm that the Government have dropped a manifesto commitment to introduce a 60-day guillotine into this place? That proposal was firmly rejected by the Joint Committee that was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. I hope that we will have an early opportunity to debate that report, too. Its fundamental conclusion was that this House operated well, that it does not abuse its powers or authority and, indeed, that it already plays a vital role in complementing the work of the one House that many of us here feel is not doing its job properly—another place.
	The Session just closed, wisely handled by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, showed the virtues of this House. The usual channels do not always get acclaim in this place—sometimes rightly so, no doubt. But they do get a lot of calls right. Perhaps the House might allow me a small, personal aside to say how pleased I am to see my old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, with us again at the start of the Session. He should know the high esteem in which he is held.
	At the end of the Session, we saw typical give and take. We did not reach ideal solutions, but we improved much bad legislation. That is what we are here to do under every Government. Although some were disappointed that the House did not do more, a willingness to give concessions and compromise on both sides is what makes this place work. However, if this House were elected, I believe that it would not have the same self-restraint.
	Perhaps I may be permitted another small postscript to the last Session. The additions to the Companies Bill at so late a stage were an appalling way to legislate, of which the DTI should be ashamed. Never again. Equally, use of an order to impose deeply distasteful legislation on Northern Ireland was a disgrace. We all hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly will soon be up and running—it would be a tribute to the statesmanship and forbearance of many if it were. But, if it is not, it is imperative that we find a better way in this new Session to legislate for Northern Ireland than through the process of ministerial diktat by secondary legislation.
	We now face a new Session, opened by the 10th gracious Speech crafted for Her Majesty under the close influence of Mr Blair. Few, if any, of the dated slogans of the first new Labour year survive, and I give heartfelt thanks for that. But there was a good sweepstake to be run on how many of the, yet again, far too many Bills promised are "legacy" Bills of the old leader and how many are "sunrise" Bills of the new. No doubt the noble Baroness will inform us when she tells us, with her usual courtesy, how many Bills there will be and how many will start in your Lordships' House.
	When I look at the rather dowdy and uninspiring list of Bills, I see that there are, however, some that we can welcome, including overdue action on climate change, for example, which many fear will fall short of the bold proposals put forward by my party's leader, Mr Cameron. We shall look to improve that. There is, again, legislation on local government. That does need more freedom, but the test of the Bill will be whether it sweeps away central controls. I welcome a Bill to police our borders, but it is nine years too late in a country where illegal immigrants cannot be counted and where, if they are found guilty of a crime, they are released from prison to offend again.
	I welcome, too, independence for government statistics. In fact, I think that both Houses welcomed that when they heard the gracious Speech this morning, but we have seen too many dodgy Treasury press releases not to want to look at the small print. We have yet another Bill on pensions, so soon after the last. We shall scrutinise that closely. And, again—does the Home Office never learn?—I am dismayed to see yet more (is it four, five or six?) Home Office Bills and, yet again, resurrection of the Government's obsessive attempt to restrict trial by jury.
	We have had a gush of legislation from the Home Office these past 10 years but violent crime and lawlessness are no better, just as education and hospitals are still riven with problems. More legislation is not the answer—better administration is. I welcomed a speech by the Home Secretary earlier this week. He made precisely this point: it is not new law that is needed but properly applied law.
	My colleagues on the Front Bench will have much more to say about the details of the Speech over the next few days. However, I want to address some more general points today, so perhaps I may add this. One way in which this House has distinguished itself in recent years has been in defence of the ancient liberties of our land. Those liberties were hard to win and much blood was spilt to win them, but they are desperately easy to lose.
	I was born in the Cold War era, in which we faced a society where the surveillance of every individual was a commonplace, where the state was master and not servant, and where freedom was conditional and every citizen a suspect. That is not a society in which I wish to die, and I suspect that that goes for many noble Lords on all sides of this House. Freedom does not die in one blow; it dies by inches in public legislation. This House has been right to be vigilant and it should remain so. This is becoming a major fault-line in the philosophy of what a free society should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, recognised. We should never be cowed by the weapons of populist politics into voting to limit freedom. Often when the House has taken a stand on jurytrial, habeas corpus, ID cards or the secret ballot, it has proved to be right. So I welcome the Home Secretary's words and assure him that we are always ready to meet in mature discussion on such issues.
	It will be strange to see this Prime Minister—such a brilliant election winner—fading away on the US lecture circuit in the next year or so. He leaves the world a more dangerous place. In Israel and Palestine, in Iraq, in Iran and in Afghanistan, we face a varying and massive strategic and diplomatic challenge that this House must debate and debate soon. Latin America is tormented by a divisive philosophy, promoted with oil billions by Mr Chavez, which aims to drive that continent disastrously to the authoritarian left, just to spite America.
	Where are we in that debate? Where are we on the complex issues unfolding in Russia? Where are we in the terrifying nuclear future that could loom in east Asia? Where are we on the blunder of historic proportions being made on Turkey by EU politicians, who cannot forget that the Ottomans came to the gates of Vienna in 1683? Where are we on a new vision for the European Union, framed for the needs of the 21st century and not rooted in the mindset of 1960? Nowhere. Those debates are not taking place. There is much to do, but the Prime Minister has lost the authority to do it. It is vital for this House, with all its wisdom, to have a say on all those great issues in the Session ahead.
	I would like to say in conclusion that this Speech and, indeed, the last nine years formed a great legacy. Much as I want to unite the House today, however, I cannot in all truth say that. After three massive majorities, a decade in power and 370 Acts of Parliament so far, the question to answer is why so little has been achieved. Why, in 2006, is the Prime Minister battling forlornly to retake positions on health and education so wilfully abandoned in 1997? I think that it is because Mr Reid is right in what he says. Too often, spin and headlines have been put above delivery. Too often, law has been used to score political points, rather than to make real change. Too often, power has been centralised.
	We are left with too many problems crying out to be solved: family breakdown; drug and alcohol dependency; isolation; alienation; and the collapse of the community. We need a fresh approach, one that trusts local communities, businesses and individuals. We need policies framed in the national interest, not for partisan advantage, and leadership focused not on the day's news headlines, but on the long-term good of all. We need Ministers less obsessed with rules and regulations and we need to renew the sense that people have real power over their own lives. And we should measure each and every policy against the test of whether it trusts British families. In short, we need fewer laws and more humility from all of us at the top.
	As I think the House has realised, I am not hugely optimistic about the year ahead. It will take more than a change of guard in No. 10 to make a fresh start. The collective legacy of failure is too wide and too deep. A change of heart is needed in the very fibre of government. Above all, we need respect from Government for Parliament and for the wisdom of this House. This great House has never failed in its integrity and duty. I have faith that it will meet every challenge in the year ahead. On that note, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
	Moved, That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

Lord McNally: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, hinted, there is a strange aura about this gracious Speech. We knew that the programme set out in the previous one would run for some 18 months. In contrast, no one knows what period this programme will cover. We are all waiting for Gordon, who, as one newspaper reliably informed us, is hoarding initiatives until the Prime Minister is safely on the US lecture tour, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred. Mr Steve Richards, writing in this week's House Magazine, asked whether this gracious Speech is part of the longest obituary in history. If so, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, the intellectual godfather of new Labour, is an appropriate choice to deliver the funeral oration on the Blair era. History will judge whether he provided intellectual rigour for a genuine third way or a convenient fig leaf for a neo-Thatcherite agenda. What is certain is that today, as always, he delivered a speech of real quality and substance with mesmerising fluency.
	My praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, comes even more easily. I agreed with much of her speech, and that is not surprising because we have so much in common. We both went to University College, London; we are both fellows of that college; we both held office in the students' union; and we both had a close involvement in Shelter. I shall not take the parallels any further because I suspect that the call to the Front Bench is not too far away, and an endorsement from me does not carry the weight it should with the Government.
	Before I turn to the gracious Speech, I have to announce that I will absent for some weeks during this Session to have my knees replaced. I am assured by no less an authority than the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that after the operation I shall be skipping around like a spring lamb, and I have assured the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I shall return as an expert on NHS cuisine. In the mean time, I am fortunate to have not one but two deputies: my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Not since Octavius and Mark Antony were left in charge of Rome has an organisation been in safer hands.
	For Ministers, there must be a feeling of "Waiting for Godot". Beckett wrote:
	"Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!".
	There has been one departure: the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has left the Government Front Bench. I pay tribute to his outstanding service as Science Minister.

Lord McNally: I reassure the noble Lord that he should not be worried about being fingered as the largest contributor to Labour Party funds because I have calculated that I give the same percentage of the McNally family wealth to the Liberal Democrats as he gives of the Sainsbury family wealth to the Labour Party.
	This gracious Speech takes place against a background where the Government need to win and sustain public trust in two major areas of policy: the war on terrorism and the response to climate change. On the war on terror, there is still too much of a tendency to seek party political advantage by trying to paint anyone questioning any measure as soft on terrorism without recognising that there is a genuine debate to be had about how to combat the terrorist threat while preserving the freedoms that make our liberal democracy what it is. I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on that. Once again, the gracious Speech is frontloaded with measures dealing with counter-terrorism, law and order and the administration of justice. This morning, the BBC estimated that we have had 50 such measures since 1997, and a recent academic study showed that many of the provisions of that legislation were never implemented or were later withdrawn. To quote Steve Richards again, the record of Home Office Bills is that some have been effective, some have been useless and some simply symbolised the new Labour mission statement of the time. The gracious Speech is more of the same, with no recognition that what is needed is better administration and less legislation and better delivery, not spin. On climate change, there is widespread concern that the Government will be strong on rhetoric and short on the tough practical measures and proper benchmarking needed to meet the challenges put forward by the Stern report. On both issues, the Government's priorities should be broad consensus and public trust, not short-term party advantage.
	Talking of broad consensus brings me to reform of the House of Lords. I am sure that the whole House will be impressed by the clear, precise and detailed nature of the commitment on Lords reform contained in the gracious Speech. We will have a chance to discuss these matters in detail a week tomorrow. But noble Lords know where I stand. I agree with the Guardian editorial, which said:
	"Only in Britain would the claim that the people must be denied the right to elect their own legislators be regarded as respectable rather than risible".
	I am on record as saying that the proposals brought forward by Mr Jack Straw were among the most progressive from the Government in almost a decade. I understand that Mr Straw was given a very warm welcome when he went to the Labour Peers to discuss his ideas.
	When I look across the Chamber I see reflections reminders of my youth—but unlike me they are a little older. I remember that as I queued for my Fabian tea they streamed past to the Tribune meeting. I ask them to think whether they really want as their last political fight to die in the ditch to preserve a House of patronage and placement. As I say, we will return to that.
	Of course, when we come to that debate, we will have the benefit of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Today and last week we saw the noble and learned Lord wearing another hat—and doesn't he enjoy wearing it? I refer of course to his role as Lord Chancellor. Seeing him both at Prorogation and today, I hope that the Conservatives have not shot themselves in the foot in their desire to preserve the title. I thought that when we eased the Lord Chancellor off the Woolsack we would not see so much of him as we have in recent times. I make the point that under a new Prime Minister the Lord Chancellor might come from another place, and we must think of the position of the Lord Speaker in relation to a Lord Chancellor from another place.
	Now—I've lost the plot; not for the first time in my life. There must be another page to my notes; no, there isn't!
	We have to look very seriously at the roles of Lord Chancellor and Lord Speaker. I do not think that they are quite right yet.
	In saying only one more thing, I again refer back to my old college. I will mention not Portugal Street polytechnic but University College, London. The Constitutional Unit at the University College, London, did a study earlier this year, which showed overwhelming support for the role of this House as a check and balance in relation to an over-powerful executive. In the gracious Speech that role remains. We will need to exercise it in the year ahead.
	I remind the House that that same study showed that the best organised, best disciplined and most influential group within this House was the Liberal Democrats. With such power goes responsibility—a responsibility that we will exercise to the full in the year ahead.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as ever, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally. I am delighted to congratulate my noble friend Lord Giddens on moving the Motion on the gracious Speech. My noble friend has an outstanding record of academic achievement in the social and political sciences and as director of the London School of Economics. Not only has he helped to shape the thinking about our world and how it is changing, he has framed the language for the debate. We are all familiar with the third way. However, I must confess to my noble friend that I found the double hermeneutic a little harder to understand.
	The first book that I read as a sociology undergraduate in 1973 was written by my noble friend, so I was very pleased to receive a signed copy of the fifth edition of his book Sociology a few weeks ago. I have not mastered all of its 1,094 pages, but it was described as readable and entertaining. That is my noble friend's great strength: an ability to take complex issues and make them understandable.
	My noble friend Lady Morgan has dedicated her life and career to campaigning for social justice, equality and fair access for those in need of support, including her work at Shelter and the National Asthma Campaign. Her achievements as the chief executive of the breast cancer charity Breakthrough from 1996 to 2005 deserve our utmost admiration and respect. When she first addressed this House in 2004, it was to champion the cause of those suffering from a debilitating disease—on that occasion, mine workers suffering from emphysema and bronchitis.
	My noble friend is one of the youngest Members of the House. Indeed, on her introduction, she was the youngest Baroness in the House. She brings to this House her experience in the campaigning and charity sectors, her energy and considerable enthusiasm. I congratulate her on her speech.
	I thank both my noble friends for their excellent speeches and look forward to their continued contributions to the work of the House.
	I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, the Lord Speaker, in her place at state opening. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that our Speaker is a credit to this House and will want to join me in congratulating her on her first few months in office.
	I now turn to the detail of the gracious Speech. The package being put forward today is designed to meet the twin concerns of modern government: how to ensure the security of our citizens in a changing and evolving world; and how to keep pace with and meet the challenge of change—an agenda looking forward to the next 10 years. The rapid pace of technological change, the challenge of globalisation and the effects of human activity on the environment are all issues that require responsible citizenship and responsible leadership.
	I am delighted that a Labour Government are showing the way in that leadership. That is why the Government will focus on continuing to create strong, secure and stable communities. We will continue the programme of public service reform and build on our achievements in institutional reform. We will respond to the challenges of climate change by seeking to secure long-term energy supplies, while protecting the planet for future generations.
	Those are all challenges requiring international action and a global response, requiring a Britain strong in Europe, a strong partner with the United States, committed to tackling global poverty and focused on the future. Now, more than ever, we will need to harness innovation for the greater goal of preventing further destruction of our environment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked which Bills will be introduced in this House. This week, we will introduce Bills on mental health, consumer protection and courts and tribunals. Before Christmas, we will introduce Bills on further education and legal services reform.
	The noble Lord also asked several questions about the process of House of Lords reform. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will deal with issues relating to the further reform of this House in the debate on the Address next Thursday. However, I take this opportunity to thank those Members who sat on the Joint Committee on Conventions, and who produced the very thoughtful and thought-provoking report. It is a significant achievement that the Committee unanimously agreed the report. For that, our thanks should also go to the committee's chairman, my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling, who demonstrated his usual adroitness in dealing with a potentially contentious issue.
	This is my fourth state opening as Leader of the House, and I continue to feel honoured and privileged to be able to serve Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships' House. As many noble Lords will know, this House runs on good relationships. Despite the inevitable pressures of business, good will is maintained, and Members on all sides of the House contribute to an atmosphere that allows us to focus on the task in hand. I am grateful to all Members for making that possible.
	In the nine years in which I have been in this House, I have seen it change. In 1997, there were just over 1,200 Peers. Most were men. Today, the membership is about 750. More women and ethnic-minority Peers have entered the House since 1997. I am only the third woman, and the first black woman, to be Leader. Our first Lord Speaker is also a woman. Through these changes, this House is beginning to reflect the diversity that is modern Britain. We should all be proud of this change; I know that I am. I also thank the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the staff who work so hard to support us in our work.
	Before I conclude, I would like to remember for a moment those Members—good friends and colleagues—whom we have lost in the 18 months since our last state opening. Sadly, the list this time is very long. We have lost 26 of our Members, including Lord Merlyn-Rees, Lady Blatch, Lord Chan, Lord Ackner and Lord Stratford. We will miss them all, and we will miss their contributions.
	I look forward to the new Session and its challenges, and I hope that noble Lords do, too. I support the Motion.
	On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.